You are crossing the wires on flame spread and limited combustible.
IT is amusing that NFPA 13 has an interesting and illogical
application of the terms in the 02 edition. For a concealed
COMBUSTIBLE space, rigid material with a Class A flames spread OR
lumber that has been treated with a fire retardant (which typically
creates a Class A flame spread does it not?) allows omission of
sprinklers. Limited combustible enters the discussion when we start
talking about exterior roofs and canopies. Keep in mind that exterior
canopies is just addressing protection BENEATH them. This is where
you encounter the requirement for limited combustible construction in
order to omit protection from BENEATH the canopy.
The 07 edition has finally acknowledges separation and protection of
the concealed spaces makes a difference. It also as incorporated the
allowance for fire retardant treated lumber to omit protection so the
oddity in how the two characteristics are treated in prior editions
has been addressed.
Roland
On Jan 12, 2007, at 7:47 AM, David de Vries/Firetech wrote:
Todd:
That appears to be UL, not ULC.
Whether this product, or any other product listed in that category
would turn a ceiling or concealed space that is otherwise
combustible into a non-combustible or limited combustible ceiling
or space is problematic. The test applied by UL is the one for
Surface Burning Characteristics, UL 723. It does not necessarily
correlate to the flammability of the material. For example, gypsum
board with typical paper face might have a flame spread index of 10
or 15, just like a wood product treated with one of these fire
retardants. The difference is that the core material of the gyp
board is non-combustible, whereas the wood product is combustible.
Once the surface protection is gone, you're back to a combustible
concealed space, or combustible ceiling.
--
David de Vries, P.E., CSP
Firetech Engineering Incorporated
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Todd Williams - work <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bill,
Is this UL or UL Canada listed?
At 09:23 AM 1/12/2007, you wrote:
This product has a UL listing. I'm not endorsing one way or the
other but I
think the intent of NFPA 13 would be to accept products like this
when
applied properly as Roland indicates.
http://database.ul.com/cgi-bin/XYV/template/LISEXT/1FRAME/
showpage.html?name
=BMQX.R19565&ccnshorttitle=Coatings,+Fire
+Retardant&objid=1078153113&cfgid=1
073741824&version=versionless&parent_id=1073984654&sequence=1
Bill Brooks
Pittsburgh, PA
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Roland
Huggins
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 1:13 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Wood Coating
AS we all know, 13 allows fire retardant wood to be used as defined
by NFPA 703. The last time I looked (was nit recently but a year or
3), NFPA 703 addresses both pressure treated wood (as required by
the
building code to qualify as treated) AND surface applied (ie field
painted).
IMHO, bad approach.
Roland
On Jan 10, 2007, at 2:09 PM, Todd Williams - work wrote:
I had a architect ask me about using this in a combustible church
attic. I was skeptical and did a little investigating. The tests
that produced the results had a minimum film thickness in order to
work properly. How do you verify the minimum thickness in a field
application? My guess is that the tests shown (by UL Canada only)
were not done on assembled structures, but on individual pieces of
material that were coated under near ideal conditions. What would
happen in a structure coated after assembly? Why is there no UL -
United States or FM tests? Too many questions for me; I'd walk
away. (So did the architect referenced above)
Todd
At 04:15 PM 1/10/2007, you wrote:
Has anyone seen this product?
It touts that it replaces sprinklers in combustible concealed
spaces,
under NFPA-13.
If you have seen it, pros and cons?
http://www.eaglecoatings.net/content/safecoatlatex.htm
Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc.
2006 Inductee into "The Players Hall of Fame"
at The Great Games of Business
Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. "Best Places to Work"
Rated #1 in 2006
Large Business Category
by Orlando Business Journal
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
Todd G. Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, Connecticut
860-535-2080
www.fpdc.com
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
Todd G. Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, Connecticut
860-535-2080
www.fpdc.com
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
